I give Britnannya 5 years

Order2Chaos · Aug 25, 2007

5 years before this applies to every home, not just "high-risk" homes:

A controversial plan for CCTV to be used to protect children in the homes of chaotic drug-abusing parents has been proposed by one of Scotland's most eminent drugs experts.
Professor Neil McKeganey, head of the centre for Drug Misuse Research at Glasgow University, believes radical measures are required to protect the estimated 160,000 children in Scotland living with an alcoholic or drug-addicted parent.
He believes the sheer scale of the problem, which was previously estimated as being far lower, makes it impossible for social workers to guarantee children's safety.
Recent figures suggest more than 50,000 children are estimated to have a parent with a drug problem and around 80,000 to 100,000 have a parent with an alcohol problem.

Social workers and children's charities last night agreed with the need for debate and further action to protect these children but disagreed with the proposal.
Mr McKeganey is known for his extensive research and controversial views. In 2004, he suggested female drug addicts should be paid to take long-term contraception to stop them having children.
"What price should we put on our privacy?" said Mr McKeganey. "The question is whether we are prepared to say the principle of the privacy of family life is more important than that of child protection. If we accept that privacy is the most important principle then there will be many more tragic cases.
"I am aware that this will be controversial but believe the debate needs to be had. We have become used to the proliferation of CCTV cameras within public spaces. We have also become used to the idea that those cameras are an effective tool in crime prevention. What we have not considered though is their possible use in private spaces."
Recent child abuse cases have highlighted the urgent need to tackle the problem.
Last year, in the wake of an 11-year-old girl collapsing in a Glasgow primary school suffering heroin withdrawal, Jack McConnell, the then first minister, announced the children of drug addicts would be more likely to be put into care.
In another case in December 2005, two-year-old Derek Doran died in East Lothian after drinking methadone in his parents' home.
Mr McKeganey added: "The response to this suggestion will be to say that it is the unacceptable extension of big brother' and a violation of individuals human rights. But the Human Rights Act was never intended to be a get out' clause for those committing crimes or harming vulnerable children."
Michelle Miller, the Association of Directors of Social Work spokeswoman on children and families, said: "This is an enormous problem and social workers by themselves are not going to fix it. It is a much wider issue than that and we need to have a detailed debate. This proposal, however, would be completely impractical."
Anne Houston, chief executive of Children 1st, disagreed with Mr McKeganey's suggestion. "The money would be better spent in increasing the resources needed to identify and support children affected by drugs and alcohol misuse."
Meanwhile, an investigation has revealed that young drug addicts in Aberdeen city without dependants are low on the priority list and may have to wait up to two years for help.
Click to expand...

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1640679.0.0.php

One wonders if the British people care about liberty at all. I suspect not.

Ramen · Aug 25, 2007

Oooh they also better put cameras in homes with pools and staircases.

For the children.

evenflow · Aug 25, 2007

I think we need to award Britnannya a Forgie for "Most Literal Manifestation Of A Sci-Fi Cliche".

Mallory · Aug 25, 2007

Strange. Here I thought 1984 was twenty-three years ago...

Excelsius · Aug 25, 2007

Order2Chaos said: ↑

5 years before this applies to every home, not just "high-risk" homes:

A controversial plan for CCTV to be used to protect children in the homes of chaotic drug-abusing parents has been proposed by one of Scotland's most eminent drugs experts.
Professor Neil McKeganey, head of the centre for Drug Misuse Research at Glasgow University, believes radical measures are required to protect the estimated 160,000 children in Scotland living with an alcoholic or drug-addicted parent.
He believes the sheer scale of the problem, which was previously estimated as being far lower, makes it impossible for social workers to guarantee children's safety.
Recent figures suggest more than 50,000 children are estimated to have a parent with a drug problem and around 80,000 to 100,000 have a parent with an alcohol problem.

Social workers and children's charities last night agreed with the need for debate and further action to protect these children but disagreed with the proposal.
Mr McKeganey is known for his extensive research and controversial views. In 2004, he suggested female drug addicts should be paid to take long-term contraception to stop them having children.
"What price should we put on our privacy?" said Mr McKeganey. "The question is whether we are prepared to say the principle of the privacy of family life is more important than that of child protection. If we accept that privacy is the most important principle then there will be many more tragic cases.
"I am aware that this will be controversial but believe the debate needs to be had. We have become used to the proliferation of CCTV cameras within public spaces. We have also become used to the idea that those cameras are an effective tool in crime prevention. What we have not considered though is their possible use in private spaces."
Recent child abuse cases have highlighted the urgent need to tackle the problem.
Last year, in the wake of an 11-year-old girl collapsing in a Glasgow primary school suffering heroin withdrawal, Jack McConnell, the then first minister, announced the children of drug addicts would be more likely to be put into care.
In another case in December 2005, two-year-old Derek Doran died in East Lothian after drinking methadone in his parents' home.
Mr McKeganey added: "The response to this suggestion will be to say that it is the unacceptable extension of big brother' and a violation of individuals human rights. But the Human Rights Act was never intended to be a get out' clause for those committing crimes or harming vulnerable children."
Michelle Miller, the Association of Directors of Social Work spokeswoman on children and families, said: "This is an enormous problem and social workers by themselves are not going to fix it. It is a much wider issue than that and we need to have a detailed debate. This proposal, however, would be completely impractical."
Anne Houston, chief executive of Children 1st, disagreed with Mr McKeganey's suggestion. "The money would be better spent in increasing the resources needed to identify and support children affected by drugs and alcohol misuse."
Meanwhile, an investigation has revealed that young drug addicts in Aberdeen city without dependants are low on the priority list and may have to wait up to two years for help.
Click to expand...

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1640679.0.0.php

One wonders if the British people care about liberty at all. I suspect not.
Click to expand...

The British are a most resilient people, and they will persevere. However, they will best do so not simply by pursuing their ways with rigidity, but by adaptation. They have been most historically successful when they adopted this approach.

Ramen · Aug 25, 2007

Great Britain will adapt to socialist Islam well enough.

Order2Chaos · Aug 25, 2007

Excelsius said: ↑

Order2Chaos said: ↑

5 years before this applies to every home, not just "high-risk" homes:

A controversial plan for CCTV to be used to protect children in the homes of chaotic drug-abusing parents has been proposed by one of Scotland's most eminent drugs experts.
Professor Neil McKeganey, head of the centre for Drug Misuse Research at Glasgow University, believes radical measures are required to protect the estimated 160,000 children in Scotland living with an alcoholic or drug-addicted parent.
He believes the sheer scale of the problem, which was previously estimated as being far lower, makes it impossible for social workers to guarantee children's safety.
Recent figures suggest more than 50,000 children are estimated to have a parent with a drug problem and around 80,000 to 100,000 have a parent with an alcohol problem.

Social workers and children's charities last night agreed with the need for debate and further action to protect these children but disagreed with the proposal.
Mr McKeganey is known for his extensive research and controversial views. In 2004, he suggested female drug addicts should be paid to take long-term contraception to stop them having children.
"What price should we put on our privacy?" said Mr McKeganey. "The question is whether we are prepared to say the principle of the privacy of family life is more important than that of child protection. If we accept that privacy is the most important principle then there will be many more tragic cases.
"I am aware that this will be controversial but believe the debate needs to be had. We have become used to the proliferation of CCTV cameras within public spaces. We have also become used to the idea that those cameras are an effective tool in crime prevention. What we have not considered though is their possible use in private spaces."
Recent child abuse cases have highlighted the urgent need to tackle the problem.
Last year, in the wake of an 11-year-old girl collapsing in a Glasgow primary school suffering heroin withdrawal, Jack McConnell, the then first minister, announced the children of drug addicts would be more likely to be put into care.
In another case in December 2005, two-year-old Derek Doran died in East Lothian after drinking methadone in his parents' home.
Mr McKeganey added: "The response to this suggestion will be to say that it is the unacceptable extension of big brother' and a violation of individuals human rights. But the Human Rights Act was never intended to be a get out' clause for those committing crimes or harming vulnerable children."
Michelle Miller, the Association of Directors of Social Work spokeswoman on children and families, said: "This is an enormous problem and social workers by themselves are not going to fix it. It is a much wider issue than that and we need to have a detailed debate. This proposal, however, would be completely impractical."
Anne Houston, chief executive of Children 1st, disagreed with Mr McKeganey's suggestion. "The money would be better spent in increasing the resources needed to identify and support children affected by drugs and alcohol misuse."
Meanwhile, an investigation has revealed that young drug addicts in Aberdeen city without dependants are low on the priority list and may have to wait up to two years for help.
Click to expand...

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1640679.0.0.php

One wonders if the British people care about liberty at all. I suspect not.
Click to expand...

The British are a most resilient people, and they will persevere. However, they will best do so not simply by pursuing their ways with rigidity, but by adaptation. They have been most historically successful when they adopted this approach.
Click to expand...

Of course they will survive; millennia of despotic, tyrannical rulers throughout shows that anyone can survive. The question is whether or not they will do so as a free people. I suspect not.

JUSTLEE · Aug 25, 2007

And they call thmeselves enlightened. Yeesh.

Sometimes the slippery slope is real.

enlisted person · Aug 25, 2007

I would piss in the camera lens after a few brews.

Archangel · Aug 25, 2007

"For the children" has stolen far more rights than "terrrrrrrristsss" But you don't hear near as much from the usual suspects.

JUSTLEE · Aug 25, 2007

Because people like children and are sympathetic to them. people don't like terrorists and are not sympathetic to them. People who are popular/well liked/sympathised with get away with a lot more than people who are not.

Bailey · Aug 25, 2007

Social workers and children's charities last night agreed with the need for debate and further action to protect these children but disagreed with the proposal.
Click to expand...

Did you actually read the entire article or just see "CCTV" and have one of your special happy moments?

Spider · Aug 25, 2007

He's just trying to shock people into looking at the problem more seriously. It's not as if anyone in their right mind thinks this is actually going to happen.

Order2Chaos · Aug 25, 2007

Bailey said: ↑

Social workers and children's charities last night agreed with the need for debate and further action to protect these children but disagreed with the proposal.
Click to expand...

Did you actually read the entire article or just see "CCTV" and have one of your special happy moments?
Click to expand...

Heaven knows the social workers and children's charities this guy criticized as being unable to solve the problem wouldn't be biased in the matter.

Elwood · Aug 25, 2007

Order2Chaos said: ↑

"What price should we put on our privacy?" said Mr McKeganey. "The question is whether we are prepared to say the principle of the privacy of family life is more important than that of child protection. If we accept that privacy is the most important principle then there will be many more tragic cases.
Click to expand...

Elwood said: ↑

People are going to die. Innocents are going to get hurt. That's the price you pay to live in a society that seeks to maximize individual liberty. It's not pretty. It's messy and often bloody, but it's free.
Click to expand...

Ramen · Aug 25, 2007

Spider said: ↑

He's just trying to shock people into looking at the problem more seriously. It's not as if anyone in their right mind thinks this is actually going to happen.
Click to expand...

But it's for the children!

Bailey · Aug 25, 2007

Order2Chaos said: ↑

Bailey said: ↑

Social workers and children's charities last night agreed with the need for debate and further action to protect these children but disagreed with the proposal.
Click to expand...

Did you actually read the entire article or just see "CCTV" and have one of your special happy moments?
Click to expand...

Heaven knows the social workers and children's charities this guy criticized as being unable to solve the problem wouldn't be biased in the matter.
Click to expand...

Which still isn't addressing the point that the whole point of this article is "this guy has a suggestion, here is no-one agreeing with it"

matthunter · Aug 26, 2007

This already happens, it's a reality show called "Honey, We're Killing the Kids".

This is just BBC3 getting more footage.

evenflow · Aug 26, 2007

matthunter said: ↑

This already happens, it's a reality show called "Honey, We're Killing the Kids".

This is just BBC3 getting more footage.
Click to expand...

The families in that show are given no choice on whether the cameras can enter?

Excelsius · Aug 26, 2007

Order2Chaos said: ↑

Excelsius said: ↑

Order2Chaos said: ↑

5 years before this applies to every home, not just "high-risk" homes:

A controversial plan for CCTV to be used to protect children in the homes of chaotic drug-abusing parents has been proposed by one of Scotland's most eminent drugs experts.
Professor Neil McKeganey, head of the centre for Drug Misuse Research at Glasgow University, believes radical measures are required to protect the estimated 160,000 children in Scotland living with an alcoholic or drug-addicted parent.
He believes the sheer scale of the problem, which was previously estimated as being far lower, makes it impossible for social workers to guarantee children's safety.
Recent figures suggest more than 50,000 children are estimated to have a parent with a drug problem and around 80,000 to 100,000 have a parent with an alcohol problem.

Social workers and children's charities last night agreed with the need for debate and further action to protect these children but disagreed with the proposal.
Mr McKeganey is known for his extensive research and controversial views. In 2004, he suggested female drug addicts should be paid to take long-term contraception to stop them having children.
"What price should we put on our privacy?" said Mr McKeganey. "The question is whether we are prepared to say the principle of the privacy of family life is more important than that of child protection. If we accept that privacy is the most important principle then there will be many more tragic cases.
"I am aware that this will be controversial but believe the debate needs to be had. We have become used to the proliferation of CCTV cameras within public spaces. We have also become used to the idea that those cameras are an effective tool in crime prevention. What we have not considered though is their possible use in private spaces."
Recent child abuse cases have highlighted the urgent need to tackle the problem.
Last year, in the wake of an 11-year-old girl collapsing in a Glasgow primary school suffering heroin withdrawal, Jack McConnell, the then first minister, announced the children of drug addicts would be more likely to be put into care.
In another case in December 2005, two-year-old Derek Doran died in East Lothian after drinking methadone in his parents' home.
Mr McKeganey added: "The response to this suggestion will be to say that it is the unacceptable extension of big brother' and a violation of individuals human rights. But the Human Rights Act was never intended to be a get out' clause for those committing crimes or harming vulnerable children."
Michelle Miller, the Association of Directors of Social Work spokeswoman on children and families, said: "This is an enormous problem and social workers by themselves are not going to fix it. It is a much wider issue than that and we need to have a detailed debate. This proposal, however, would be completely impractical."
Anne Houston, chief executive of Children 1st, disagreed with Mr McKeganey's suggestion. "The money would be better spent in increasing the resources needed to identify and support children affected by drugs and alcohol misuse."
Meanwhile, an investigation has revealed that young drug addicts in Aberdeen city without dependants are low on the priority list and may have to wait up to two years for help.
Click to expand...

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1640679.0.0.php

One wonders if the British people care about liberty at all. I suspect not.
Click to expand...

The British are a most resilient people, and they will persevere. However, they will best do so not simply by pursuing their ways with rigidity, but by adaptation. They have been most historically successful when they adopted this approach.
Click to expand...

Of course they will survive; millennia of despotic, tyrannical rulers throughout shows that anyone can survive. The question is whether or not they will do so as a free people. I suspect not.
Click to expand...

If they survived previous despotisms, then why not?

matthunter · Aug 27, 2007

evenflow said: ↑

matthunter said: ↑

This already happens, it's a reality show called "Honey, We're Killing the Kids".

This is just BBC3 getting more footage.
Click to expand...

The families in that show are given no choice on whether the cameras can enter?
Click to expand...

I now declare the concept of humour officially dead on this board.

Linda R. · Aug 27, 2007

Apart from the excellent point Bailey made, can I point out that this is absolutely nothing to do with 'Britain'? I know it's a difficult concept for others, but Scotland is a separate country, with its own parliament and laws...

bryce · Aug 27, 2007

Linda R. said: ↑

Apart from the excellent point Bailey made, can I point out that this is absolutely nothing to do with 'Britain'? I know it's a difficult concept for others, but Scotland is a separate country, with its own parliament and laws...
Click to expand...

Meh, most of us still couldn't point to either on a map...

Spider · Aug 27, 2007

Linda R. said: ↑

Apart from the excellent point Bailey made, can I point out that this is absolutely nothing to do with 'Britain'? I know it's a difficult concept for others, but Scotland is a separate country, with its own parliament and laws...
Click to expand...

So when are Scottish MPs going to stop voting for higher taxes in England, then?

Order2Chaos · Aug 27, 2007

Excelsius said: ↑

Order2Chaos said: ↑

Excelsius said: ↑

Order2Chaos said: ↑

5 years before this applies to every home, not just "high-risk" homes:

A controversial plan for CCTV to be used to protect children in the homes of chaotic drug-abusing parents has been proposed by one of Scotland's most eminent drugs experts.
Professor Neil McKeganey, head of the centre for Drug Misuse Research at Glasgow University, believes radical measures are required to protect the estimated 160,000 children in Scotland living with an alcoholic or drug-addicted parent.
He believes the sheer scale of the problem, which was previously estimated as being far lower, makes it impossible for social workers to guarantee children's safety.
Recent figures suggest more than 50,000 children are estimated to have a parent with a drug problem and around 80,000 to 100,000 have a parent with an alcohol problem.

Social workers and children's charities last night agreed with the need for debate and further action to protect these children but disagreed with the proposal.
Mr McKeganey is known for his extensive research and controversial views. In 2004, he suggested female drug addicts should be paid to take long-term contraception to stop them having children.
"What price should we put on our privacy?" said Mr McKeganey. "The question is whether we are prepared to say the principle of the privacy of family life is more important than that of child protection. If we accept that privacy is the most important principle then there will be many more tragic cases.
"I am aware that this will be controversial but believe the debate needs to be had. We have become used to the proliferation of CCTV cameras within public spaces. We have also become used to the idea that those cameras are an effective tool in crime prevention. What we have not considered though is their possible use in private spaces."
Recent child abuse cases have highlighted the urgent need to tackle the problem.
Last year, in the wake of an 11-year-old girl collapsing in a Glasgow primary school suffering heroin withdrawal, Jack McConnell, the then first minister, announced the children of drug addicts would be more likely to be put into care.
In another case in December 2005, two-year-old Derek Doran died in East Lothian after drinking methadone in his parents' home.
Mr McKeganey added: "The response to this suggestion will be to say that it is the unacceptable extension of big brother' and a violation of individuals human rights. But the Human Rights Act was never intended to be a get out' clause for those committing crimes or harming vulnerable children."
Michelle Miller, the Association of Directors of Social Work spokeswoman on children and families, said: "This is an enormous problem and social workers by themselves are not going to fix it. It is a much wider issue than that and we need to have a detailed debate. This proposal, however, would be completely impractical."
Anne Houston, chief executive of Children 1st, disagreed with Mr McKeganey's suggestion. "The money would be better spent in increasing the resources needed to identify and support children affected by drugs and alcohol misuse."
Meanwhile, an investigation has revealed that young drug addicts in Aberdeen city without dependants are low on the priority list and may have to wait up to two years for help.
Click to expand...

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1640679.0.0.php

One wonders if the British people care about liberty at all. I suspect not.
Click to expand...

The British are a most resilient people, and they will persevere. However, they will best do so not simply by pursuing their ways with rigidity, but by adaptation. They have been most historically successful when they adopted this approach.
Click to expand...

Of course they will survive; millennia of despotic, tyrannical rulers throughout shows that anyone can survive. The question is whether or not they will do so as a free people. I suspect not.
Click to expand...

If they survived previous despotisms, then why not?
Click to expand...

Are you actually this dense? I just said they would survive, but that they will not have anything resembling freedom in the relatively near future, and probably for a long time.

Darkening · Aug 27, 2007

enlisted person said: ↑

I would piss in the camera lens after a few brews.
Click to expand...

Is that before or after your boyfriend takes you up the wrongin?

Bailey · Aug 27, 2007

Order2Chaos said: ↑

Are you actually this dense? I just said they would survive, but that they will not have anything resembling freedom in the relatively near future, and probably for a long time.
Click to expand...

And are you really that dense?

phantomofthenet · Aug 27, 2007

One day, I hope that Britons will remember the Fifth of November.

NAHTMMM · Aug 27, 2007

Order2Chaos said: ↑

Bailey said: ↑

Social workers and children's charities last night agreed with the need for debate and further action to protect these children but disagreed with the proposal.
Click to expand...

Did you actually read the entire article or just see "CCTV" and have one of your special happy moments?
Click to expand...

Heaven knows the social workers and children's charities this guy criticized as being unable to solve the problem wouldn't be biased in the matter.
Click to expand...

I'd expect them to be biased in the other direction, but yeah, maybe the pride issue actually was strong enough to skew a group in the "don't give us more power/influence" direction for once . . .

Sunshine · Aug 27, 2007

phantomofthenet said: ↑

One day, I hope that Britons will remember the Fifth of November.
Click to expand...

We remember. It just doesn't seem to stir anything these days.

Log in or Sign up

I give Britnannya 5 years

Order2Chaos Ultimate... Immortal Administrator

Ramen Banned

evenflow Lofty Administrator

Mallory Older than dirt Deceased Member

Excelsius Dreamer of Dreams

Ramen Banned

Order2Chaos Ultimate... Immortal Administrator

JUSTLEE The Ancient Starfighter

enlisted person Black Swan

Archangel Guest

JUSTLEE The Ancient Starfighter

Bailey It's always Christmas Eve Super Moderator

Spider Splat

Order2Chaos Ultimate... Immortal Administrator

Elwood I know what I'm about, son.

Ramen Banned

Bailey It's always Christmas Eve Super Moderator

matthunter Ice Bear

evenflow Lofty Administrator

Excelsius Dreamer of Dreams

matthunter Ice Bear

Linda R. Fresh Meat

bryce Optimism - It's Back!

Spider Splat

Order2Chaos Ultimate... Immortal Administrator

Darkening Guest

Bailey It's always Christmas Eve Super Moderator

phantomofthenet Locked By Request

NAHTMMM Perpetually sondering

Sunshine Little Miss

Log in or Sign up

I give Britnannya 5 years

Order2Chaos Ultimate... Immortal Administrator

Ramen Banned

evenflow Lofty Administrator

Mallory Older than dirt Deceased Member

Excelsius Dreamer of Dreams

Ramen Banned

Order2Chaos Ultimate... Immortal Administrator

JUSTLEE The Ancient Starfighter

enlisted person Black Swan

Archangel Guest

JUSTLEE The Ancient Starfighter

Bailey It's always Christmas Eve Super Moderator

Spider Splat

Order2Chaos Ultimate... Immortal Administrator

Elwood I know what I'm about, son.

Ramen Banned

Bailey It's always Christmas Eve Super Moderator

matthunter Ice Bear

evenflow Lofty Administrator

Excelsius Dreamer of Dreams

matthunter Ice Bear

Linda R. Fresh Meat

bryce Optimism - It's Back!

Spider Splat

Order2Chaos Ultimate... Immortal Administrator

Darkening Guest

Bailey It's always Christmas Eve Super Moderator

phantomofthenet Locked By Request

NAHTMMM Perpetually sondering

Sunshine Little Miss

Useful Searches